Legal Opinion · Concurrence

James L. Parrish v. Eric K. Shinseki

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Decided April 22, 2011No. 09-0757Published

1ConcurrenceDavis, Judge

While I concur with the judgment of the majority opinion, I write separately to express my disagreement with the majority’s analysis and resolution of Mr. Parrish’s argument that, even if the USB had the authority to make a delegation to the C & P Director to conduct the radiation determination required by 38 C.F.R. § 3.311(c), he never did so. Mr. Parrish argues that there is no evidence in the record that a delegation memorandum designating the C & P Director was executed, as required by VA policy. See II.B.3, ante. The majority states: “it is ... not surprising that a delegation memorandum…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. Ashley v. DerwinskiUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1992
  3. Baldwin v. WestUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1999
  4. Schoolman v. WestUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1999
  5. Robert v. Posey v. Eric K. ShinsekiUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 2010

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API